scholarly journals Evaluation on curative effects of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy via a transforaminal approach versus an interlaminar approach for patients with lumbar disc herniation

Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 100 (39) ◽  
pp. e27089
Author(s):  
Rui Li ◽  
Bo Chen ◽  
Weiwen Shen ◽  
Qing Wang
2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. E75-E84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhong-Liang Deng

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been growing in popularity for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) due to its irreplaceable advantages over conventional open surgery. Compared with common lumbar disc herniations, discectomy of highly migrated LDH by PELD is known to be very difficult. Highly migrated lumbar disc herniation has long been a challenge for its specific characteristics. Three approaches for PELD have been applied to access a highly migrated LDH, including an interlaminar approach (IL), transforaminal approach (TF), and contralateral transforaminal approach (CTF). However, none of the existing research has systematically described the selection of the most appropriate procedure from the 3 approaches or the individualization of an operative procedure in different cases. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to present a detailed surgical approach selection and individualization of procedure in the treatment of highly migrated LDH with PELD. We also mean to compare the outcomes of patients with highly migrated LDH treated with PELD by the 3 approaches. Study Design: Single-center retrospective observational study. Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a medical center, major metropolitan city, China. Methods: In our retrospective analysis between March 2011 and March 2013, 73 patients with single level highly migrated LDH received PELD. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, the modified MacNab criteria, and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Relevant data such as operation duration and fluoroscopy frequency of the 3 operative approaches were recorded. Results: The mean operating time of IL was 56 minutes, compared with 64 minutes for TF and 112 minutes for CTF. The mean intraoperative fluoroscopy times were 5.5 for IL, 9.7 for TF, and 14.6 for CTF. In each group, the mean VAS and ODI after surgery and 3 months after surgery improved dramatically compared with preoperative counterparts. However, the difference between postoperative results and the results 3 months after surgery was not significant (P > 0.05). The overall excellent rate was 90.4% according to the modified MacNab criteria; there was no significant statistical difference between the 3 operative routes. Operative complications occurred in 3 patients (2 after IL and one after CTF, 3 of 73, 4.1%). Limitations: This study is limited by its sample size. Conclusion: In our research, PELD with all 3 approaches was similarly effective to highly migrated disc herniation. The CTF approach required the longest operation duration and the most intraoperative times. On the contrary, the least operation time and radiographfrequency was required with the IL approach. In addition, we came to a conclusion of surgery approach selection when it comes to varied HM-LDH. Key words: Highly migrated, lumbar disc herniation, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, minimally invasive treatment Pain Physician 2017;


2020 ◽  
Vol 103 (12) ◽  
pp. 1277-1283

Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and complications of post percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) via transforaminal (TF) approach and interlaminar (IL) approach in patients with lumbar disc herniation L4-L5 level. Materials and Methods: Eighty-five patients diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation on L4-L5 level and who underwent PELD were non-randomly recruited and assigned into two groups. Fifty-two patients underwent PELD via the IL approach and thirty-three patients underwent PELD via the TF approach. The demographic data, resting visual analog scale (VAS), activity VAS, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications were obtained before the operation, and at follow-up on day 1, and at 2-, 6-, 12-, and 24-months post operation. Results: Resting VAS and activity VAS statistically significantly declined in both groups (p=0.001). Activities of daily living (ADL) as assessed by ODI increased significantly in both groups (p=0.001). However, there was no significant differences between the groups. The TF approach group had significant more dysesthesia and re-surgery (p=0.009, p=0.05, respectively) than the IL approach group. The total re-surgery rate during the two years of follow-up was in the 9.4%. Conclusion: PELD is a safe and effective minimal invasive spine surgery. The clinical results via both approaches have similar result but PELD via the TF approach had higher post-operative complications than via the IL approach. Additionally, PELD via the TF approach required higher skill to puncture and there is a steeper learning curve than PELD via the IL approach. Keywords: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, PELD, Transforaminal, Interlaminar


2016 ◽  
Vol 4;19 (4;5) ◽  
pp. E675-E680
Author(s):  
Xin Gu

The technique of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discetomy (PELD) in the transforaminal approach has evolved over the years due to the advances in endoscopic photology and instrumentation and become the most popular technique for lumbar disc herniation. Although PELD offers many advantages, the indications of PELD are limited mostly to non-migrated or low-migrated disc herniation. It is very difficult for PELD in the transforaminal approach to remove the highly migrated disc fragment successfully due to the anatomic barrier. Nowadays, with the advances of instruments and technique, it might be possible for PELD in the transforaminal approach to remove these high-grade migrated disc fragments. The purpose of this study was to describe a technique to effectively treat highly migrated disc herniation via 2 working channels. Key words: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, far-migrated disc herniation, working channels


2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manyoung Kim ◽  
Sol Lee ◽  
Hyeun-Sung Kim ◽  
Sangyoon Park ◽  
Sang-Yeup Shim ◽  
...  

Background. Among the surgical methods for lumbar disc herniation, open lumbar microdiscectomy is considered the gold standard. Recently, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy is also commonly performed for lumbar disc herniation for its various strong points. Objectives. The present study aims to examine whether percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy show better results as surgical treatments for lumbar disc herniation in the Korean population. Methods. In the present meta-analysis, papers on Korean patients who underwent open lumbar microdiscectomy and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy were searched, both of which are surgical methods to treat lumbar disc herniation. The papers from 1973, when percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy was first introduced, to March 2018 were searched at the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. Results. Seven papers with 1254 patients were selected. A comparison study revealed that percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy had significantly better results than open lumbar microdiscectomy in the visual analogue pain scale at the final follow-up (leg: mean difference [MD]=-0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-0.61, -0.09; p=0.009; back: MD=-0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-1.42, -0.17; p=0.01), Oswestry Disability Index (MD=-2.12; 95% CI=-4.25, 0.01; p=0.05), operation time (MD=-23.06; 95% CI=-32.42, -13.70; p<0.00001), and hospital stay (MD=-4.64; 95% CI=-6.37, -2.90; p<0.00001). There were no statistical differences in the MacNab classification (odds ratio [OR]=1.02; 95% CI=0.71, 1.49; p=0.90), complication rate (OR=0.72; 95% CI=0.20, 2.62; p=0.62), recurrence rate (OR=0.83; 95% CI=0.50, 1.38; p=0.47), and reoperation rate (OR=1.45; 95% CI=0.89, 2.35; p=0.13). Limitations. All 7 papers used for the meta-analysis were non-RCTs. Some differences (type of surgery (primary or revisional), treatment options before the operation, follow-up period, etc.) existed depending on the selected paper, and the sample size was small as well. Conclusion. While percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy showed better results than open lumbar microdiscectomy in some items, open lumbar microdiscectomy still showed good clinical results, and it is therefore reckoned that a randomized controlled trial with a large sample size would be required in the future to compare these two surgical methods.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document